Review of decision analytic tools for sustainable nanotechnology

Environment Systems and Decisions

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 29-41

  Subramanian, Vrishali ^a   Semenzin, Elena ^a   Hristozov, Danail ^a   Zondervan van den Beuken, Esther ^b   Linkov, Igor ^c   Marcomini, Antonio ^a  

^a CA' FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE   (Italy)

^b TNO   (Netherlands)

^c US Army Engineer Research and Development Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Life cycle assessment; Multi criteria decision analysis; Nanotechnology; Risk analysis; Sustainability assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925539361     PISSN: 21945403     EISSN: 21945411     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10669-015-9541-x     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. Andrae AS, Andersen O (2011) Life cycle assessment of integrated circuit packaging technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:258–267
2. Arvidsson R, Kushnir D, Sandén BA, Molander S (2014) Prospective life cycle assessment of graphene production by ultrasonication and chemical reduction. Environ Sci Technol 48:4529–4536
3. Azadnia AH, Saman MZM, Wong KY (2015) Sustainable supplier selection and order lot-sizing: an integrated multi-objective decision-making process. Int J Prod Res 53:383–408
4. Bare JC (2002) Traci: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78
5. Bauer C, Buchgeister J, Hischier R, Poganietz WR, Schebek L et al (2008) Towards a framework for life cycle thinking in the assessment of nanotechnology. J Clean Prod 16:910–926
6. Benoit C (Ed.) (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/Earthprint
7. Bergeson LL (2013) Sustainable nanomaterials: emerging governance systems. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 1:724–730
8. Bonton A, Bouchard C, Barbeau B, Jedrzejak S (2012) Comparative life cycle assessment of water treatment plants. Desalination 284:42–54
9. Bouillard JX, Vignes A (2014) Nano-Evaluris: an inhalation and explosion risk evaluation method for nanoparticle use. Part I: description of the methodology. J Nanopart Res 16:1–29
10. Boukherroub T, Ruiz A, Guinet A, Fondrevelle J (2015) An integrated approach for sustainable supply chain planning. Comput Oper Res 54:180–194
11. Caliskan H (2013) Selection of boron based tribological hard coatings using multi-criteria decision making methods. Mater Des 50:742–749
12. Canis L, Linkov I, Seager TP (2010) Application of stochastic multiattribute analysis to assessment of single walled carbon nanotube synthesis processes. Environ Sci Technol 44:8704–8711
13. Chen YW, Larbani M (2006) Two-person zero-sum game approach for fuzzy multiple attribute decision making problems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 157:34–51
14. Chiueh P-T, Y-H LEE, C-Y SU, S-L LO (2011) Assessing the environmental impact of five Pd-based catalytic technologies in removing of nitrates. J Hazard Mater 192:837–845
15. Cinelli M, Coles SR, Kirwan K (2014) Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol Ind 46:138–148
16. Cornelissen R, Jongeneelen F, Van Broekhuizen F (2011) Guidance working safely with nanomaterials and products, the guide for employers and employees. The Netherlands, Amsterdam
17. Cunningham SW, Van Der Lei TE (2009) Decision-making for new technology: a multi-actor, multi-objective method. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 76:26–38
18. Dabaghian MR, Hashemi SH, Ebadi T, Maknoon R (2008) The best available technology for small electroplating plants applying analytical hierarchy process. Int J Environ Sci Technol 5:479–484
19. de Figueirêdo MCB, Rosa MDF, Ugaya CML, Souza Filho MDSMD, Braid ACCDS et al (2012) Life cycle assessment of cellulose nanowhiskers. J Clean Prod 35:130–139
20. Dhingra R, Naidu S, Upreti G, Sawhney R (2010) Sustainable Nanotechnology: through green methods and life-cycle thinking. Sustainability 2:3323–3338
21. Devika K, Jafarian A, Nourbakhsh V (2014) Designing a sustainable closed-loop supply chain network based on triple bottom line approach: a comparison of metaheuristics hybridization techniques. Eur J Oper Res 235:594–615
22. Dobon A, Cordero P, Kreft F, Østergaard S, Robertsson M et al (2011a) The sustainability of communicative packaging concepts in the food supply chain. A case study: part 1. Life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:168–177
23. Dobon A, Cordero P, Kreft F, Østergaard SR, Antvorskov H et al (2011b) The sustainability of communicative packaging concepts in the food supply chain. A case study: part 2. Life cycle costing and sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:537–547
24. Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of twenty-first century business. Capstone, Oxford
25. Esawi AMK, Farag MM (2007) Carbon nanotube reinforced composites: potential and current challenges. Mater Des 28:2394–2401
26. Fadel TR, Steevens JA, Thomas TA, Linkov I (2014) The challenges of nanotechnology risk management. Nano Today. doi:10.1016/j.nantod.2014.09.008
27. Flari V, Chaudhry Q, Neslo R, Cooke R (2011) Expert judgment based multi-criteria decision model to address uncertainties in risk assessment of nanotechnology-enabled food products. J Nanopart Res 13:1813–1831
28. Fthenakis V, Kim HC, Gualtero S, Bourtsalas A (2009) Nanomaterials in PV manufacture: some life cycle environmental- and health-considerations. 34th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Philadelphia, USA, pp. 2003–2008
29. Gavankar S, Suh S, Keller AF (2012) Life cycle assessment at nanoscale: review and recommendations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:295–303
30. Gazquez-Abad JC, Huertas-Garcia R, Vazquez-Gomez MD, Romeo AC (2015) Drivers of sustainability strategies in Spain’s Wine Tourism Industry. Cornel Hosp Q 56:106–117
31. Ghazinoory S, Daneshmand-Mehr M, Azadegan A (2013) Technology selection: application of the PROMETHEE in determining preferences-a real case of nanotechnology in Iran. J Oper Res Soc 64:884–897
32. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The eco-indicator 99, methodology report. A damage oriented LCIA method. VROM, The Hague
33. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, de Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2012) ReCiPe 2008—A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition (revised) / Report I: Characterisation. VROM—Ministery of Housing Spatial Planning and Environment, Den Haag (the Netherlands)
34. Govindan K, Azevedo SG, Carvalho H, Cruz-Machado V (2014) Impact of supply chain management practices on sustainability. J Clean Prod 85:212–225
35. Grieger KD, Linkov I, Hansen SF, Baun A (2012) Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: review and evaluation of frameworks. Nanotoxicology 6:196–212
36. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Koning A de, Oers L van, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, udo de Haes HA, Bruijn H de, Duin R van, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational annex. III: Scientific background. Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 1-4020-0228-9, Dordrecht, 692 p
37. Hancock NT, Black ND, Cath TY (2012) A comparative life cycle assessment of hybrid osmotic dilution desalination and established seawater desalination and wastewater reclamation processes. Water Res 46:1145–1154
38. Hansen S (2009) Regulation and risk assessment of nanomaterials—too little, too late?. Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
39. Hellweg S, Demou E, Bruzzi R, Meijer A, Rosenbaum RK et al (2009) Integrating human indoor air pollutant exposure within life cycle impact assessment. Environ Sci Technol 43:1670–1679
40. Hischier R, Walser T (2012) Life cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: state of the art and strategies to overcome existing gaps. Sci Total Environ 425:271–282
41. Höck J, Epprecht T, Hofmann H, Höhener K, Krug H et al (2008) Guidelines on the precautionary matrix for synthetic nanomaterials. Federal Office for Public Health and Federal Office for the Environment, Bern
42. Hristozov D, Gottardo S, Critto A, Marcomini A (2012) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicology 6:880–898
43. Hristozov DR, Zabeo A, Foran C, Isigonis P, Critto A et al (2014) A weight of evidence approach for hazard screening of engineered nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 8:72–87
44. Hsu L-C, Ou S-L, Ou Y-C (2015) A comprehensive performance evaluation and ranking methodology under a sustainable development perspective. J Bus Econ Manag 16:74–92
45. Hull M, Kennedy AJ, Detzel C, Vikesland P, Chappell MA (2012) Moving beyond mass: the unmet need to consider dose metrics in environmental nanotoxicology studies. Environ Sci Technol 46:10881–10882
46. Institution of Chemical Engineers (ICE) Sustainable Development Working Group (2003) Sustainable development progress metrics. The Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby
47. Jansujwicz JS, Johnson TR (2015) The Maine Tidal Power Initiative: transdisciplinary sustainability science research for the responsible development of tidal power. Sustain Sci 10:75–86
48. Jensen KA, Saber AT, Kristensen HV, Koponen IK, Liguori B et al (2013) NanoSafer vs. 1.1—Nanomaterial risk assessment using first order modeling. 6th International Symposium on Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health: 120
49. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J et al (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330
50. Keisler JM, Collier ZA, Chu E, Sinatra N, Linkov I (2014) Value of information analysis: the state of application. Environ Syst Decis 34:3–23
51. Kim HC, Fthenakis V, Gualtero S, Van Der Meulen R, Kim H (2007) Comparative life-cycle analysis of photovoltaics based on nano-materials: a proposed framework. In: Fthenakis V, Dillon A, Savage N (eds) MRS proceedings, vol 1041. Cambridge University Press, pp R1001–R1004
52. Kumaraguru S, Rachuri S, Lechevalier D (2014) Faceted classification of manufacturing processes for sustainability performance evaluation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 75:1309–1320
53. Kurdve M, Zackrisson M, Wiktorsson M, Harlin U (2014) Lean and green integration into production system models—experiences from Swedish industry. J Clean Prod 85:180–190
54. Kuzma J, Paradise J, Ramachandran G, Kim JA, Kokotovich A et al (2008) An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Anal 28:1197–1219
55. LICARA Website. http://www.licara.eu/. Accessed on 25 November 2014
56. Linkov I, Seager TP (2011) Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. Environ Sci Technol 45:5068–5074
57. Linkov I, Bates ME, Canis LJ, Seager TP, Keisler JM (2011) A decision-directed approach for prioritizing research into the impact of nanomaterials on the environment and human health. Nat Nanotechnol 6:784–787
58. Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2015) Supporting decision making for sustainable nanotechnology. Environ Syst Decis. doi:10.1007/s10669-015-9539-4
59. Meyer DE, Curran MA, Gonzalez MA (2011) An examination of silver nanoparticles in socks using screening-level life cycle assessment. J Nanopart Res 13:147–156
60. Mohan M, Trump BD, Bates ME, Monica JC, Linkov I (2012) Integrating legal liabilities in nanomanufacturing risk management. Environ Sci Technol 46:7955–7962
61. Mohr NJ, Meijer A, Huijbregts MAJ, Reijnders L (2013) Environmental life cycle assessment of roof-integrated flexible amorphous silicon/nanocrystalline silicon solar cell laminate. Prog Photovolt Res Appl 21:802–815
62. Money ES, Reckhow KH, Wiesner MR (2012) The use of Bayesian networks for nanoparticle risk forecasting: model formulation and baseline evaluation. Sci Total Environ 426:436–445
63. Money ES, Barton LE, Dawson J, Reckhow KH, Wiesner MR (2014) Validation and sensitivity of the FINE Bayesian network for forecasting aquatic exposure to nano-silver. Sci Total Environ 473–474:685–691
64. Mulvihill MJ, Beach ES, Zimmerman JB, Anastas PT (2011) Green chemistry and green engineering: a framework for sustainable technology development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36:271–293
65. Naidu S, Sawhney R, Li XP (2008) A methodology for evaluation and selection of nanoparticle manufacturing processes based on sustainability metrics. Environ Sci Technol 42:6697–6702
66. National Research Council (1983) Risk assessment in a Federal Government: managing the process. The National Academic Press, Washington
67. National Research Council (2011) Sustainability and the US EPA. The National Academies Press, Washington
68. O’brien NJ, Cummins EJ (2011) A risk assessment framework for assessing metallic nanomaterials of environmental concern: aquatic exposure and behavior. Risk Anal 31:706–726
69. Osterwalder N, Capello C, Hungerbühler K, Stark WJ (2006) Energy consumption during nanoparticle production: how economic is dry synthesis? J Nanopart Res 8:1–9
70. Ostiguy C, Riediker M, Triolet J, Troisfontaines P, Vernez D (2010) Development of a specific control banding tool for nanomaterials. Expert committee (CES) on physical agents. French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety, Maisons-Alfort Cedex
71. Paik SY, Zalk DM, Swuste P (2008) Application of a pilot control banding tool for risk level assessment and control of nanoparticle exposures. Ann Occup Hyg 52:419–428
72. Parlak A, Lambert JH, Guterbock T, Clements J (2012) Population behavioral scenarios influencing radiological disaster preparedness and planning. Accid Anal Prev 48:353–362
73. Popescu VA, Popescu GN, Popescu CR (2015) Competitiveness and sustainability—a modern economic approach to the industrial policy. Metalurgija 54:426–428
74. Porzio GF, Nastasi G, Colla V, Vannucci M, Branca TA (2014) Comparison of multi-objective optimization techniques applied to off-gas management within an integrated steelwork. Appl Energy 136:1085–1097
75. Powers CM, Dana G, Gillespie P, Gwinn MR, Hendren CO, Long TC, Wang A, Davis JM (2012) Comprehensive environmental assessment: a meta-assessment approach. Environ Sci Technol 46:9202–9208
76. Raza SS, Janajreh I, Ghenai C (2014) Sustainability index approach as a selection criteria for energy storage system of an intermittent renewable energy source. Appl Energy 136:909–920
77. Ren D, Colosi LM, Smith JA (2013) Evaluating the sustainability of ceramic filters for point-of-use drinking water treatment. Environ Sci Technol 47:11206–11213
78. Robichaud CO, Tanzil D, Weilenmann U, Wiesner MR (2005) Relative risk analysis of several manufactured nanomaterials: an insurance industry context. Environ Sci Technol 39:8985–8994
79. Roes A, Marsili E, Nieuwlaar E, Patel M (2007) Environmental and cost assessment of a polypropylene nanocomposite. J Polym Environ 15:212–226
80. Roes AL, Tabak LB, Shen L, Nieuwlaar E, Patel MK (2010) Influence of using nanoobjects as filler on functionality-based energy use of nanocomposites. J Nanopart Res 12:2011–2028
81. Rosenbaum R, Bachmann T, Gold L, Huijbregts MJ, Jolliet O et al (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546
82. Santoyo-Castelazo E, Azapagic A (2014) Sustainability assessment of energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. J Clean Prod 80:119–138
83. Schulte PA, Mckernan LT, Heidel DS, Okun AH, Dotson GS et al (2013) Occupational safety and health, green chemistry, and sustainability: a review of areas of convergence. Environ Health 8:9
84. Şengül H, Theis TL (2011) An environmental impact assessment of quantum dot photovoltaics (QDPV) from raw material acquisition through use. J Clean Prod 19:21–31
85. Shatkin JA (2012) Nanotechnology: health and environmental risks. CRC Press, Boca Raton
86. Sørensen PB, Giralt F, Rallo R, Espinosa G, Münier B et al (2010) Conscious worst case definition for risk assessment, part II: a methodological case study for pesticide risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 408:3860–3870
87. Steinfeldt M, Petschow U, Haum R, Von Gleich A (2004) Nanotechnology and sustainability: prospective assessment of a future key technology. Institute for Ecological Economy Research, Berlin
88. Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2014) Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today 9:6–9
89. Sudhakaran S, Lattemann S, Amy GL (2013) Appropriate drinking water treatment processes for organic micropollutants removal based on experimental and model studies—a multi-criteria analysis study. Sci Total Environ 442:478–488
90. Teng K, Thekdi SA, Lambert JH (2012) Identification and evaluation of priorities in the business process of a risk or safety organization. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 99:74–86
91. Tervonen T, Linkov I, Figueira JR, Steevens J, Chappell M et al (2009) Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 11:757–766
92. Tsang MP, Bates ME, Madison M, Linkov I (2014) Benefits and risks of emerging technologies: integrating life cycle assessment and decision analysis to assess lumber treatment alternatives. Environ Sci Technol 48:11543–11550
93. United Nations Environment Programme (2005). Life cycle approaches: the road form analysis to practice, http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx0594xPA-Road.pdf
94. van der Meulen R, Alsema E (2011) Life-cycle greenhouse gas effects of introducing nano-crystalline materials in thin-film silicon solar cells. Prog Photovolt Res Appl 19:453–463
95. van Duuren-Stuurman B, Vink SR, Verbist KJ, Heussen HG, Brouwer DH, et al (2012) Stoffenmanager nano version 1.0: a web-based tool for risk prioritization of airborne manufactured nano objects. Annals of occupational hygiene: mer113
96. Velmurugan R, Selvamuthukumar S, Manavalan R (2011) Multi criteria decision making to select the suitable method for the preparation of nanoparticles using an analytical hierarchy process. Pharmazie 66:836–842
97. Web of Science website. http://www.webofscience.com/ Accessed on 25 August 2014
98. Wu W, Issa R (2015) BIM execution planning in green building projects: LEED as a use case. J Manage Eng 31. Special Issue: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in AEC Organizations: Assessment of Impact on Work Practices, Project Delivery, and Organizational Behavior, A4014007
99. You H, Connelly EB, Lambert JH, Clarens AF (2014) Climate and other scenarios disrupt priorities in several management perspectives. J Environ Syst Decis 34:540–554
100. Yu P, Lee JH (2013) A hybrid approach using two-level SOM and combined AHP rating and AHP/DEA-AR method for selecting optimal promising emerging technology. Expert Syst Appl 40:300–314
101. Zalk DM, Paik SY, Swuste P (2009) Evaluating the control banding nanotool: a qualitative risk assessment method for controlling nanoparticle exposures. J Nanopart Res 11:1685–1704
102. Zhang X, Shen J, Xu P, Zhao X, Xu Y (2014) Socio-economic performance of a novel solar photovoltaic/loop-heat-pipe heat pump water heating system in three different climatic regions. Appl Energy 135:20–34